The Navy is moving forward with plans to include Navy women in previously closed billets including the Marine Corps and Special Warfare (Navy SEALS).

Gender-neutral occupational standards will need to be developed and congressional notifications made prior to implementation of any changes.

This does not mean that standards will necessarily be changed; it only means that occupational standards will be developed and/or tested in billets for which the only previous criterion was being male. These standards would be used to assess and assign Sailors to Marine Corps and other ground combat positions. Note that this could potentially eliminate men from assignments as well if they don’t meet the standards.

The January 31st announcement stated:

The elimination of the policy will potentially open over 5,000 enlisted United States Marine Corps (USMC) Ground Combat Element positions, and 150 USMC Ground Combat Element officer positions… guidance for the assignment of women to Coastal Riverine Forces and USMC Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Company (ANGLICO) positions will also be developed…[and] Navy will work with Navy Special Warfare Command and US Special Operations Command to develop and evaluate a way ahead for the assignment of women to Naval Special Warfare-designated billets.

Special Operations Commander Admiral William McRaven stated:

I guarantee you, there will be females out there that will come to [Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL] training or be Rangers…and will do a phenomenal job.

There is no doubt many women will fail trying, just as more than two-thirds of men fail trying, but I am betting there are a few good women out there who will succeed. Re-watch the Demi Moore movie G.I. Jane.

I believe that is an accurate depiction of what any woman who tries this will have to endure. It is not for the weak of heart. As I stated in my December 21 post, now we just have to wait for the right women to volunteer and put themselves on the line.

As reactions to my previous posts have shown, there is a remarkable resistance by men to any change in personnel policy.

Previous policy changes, such as women’s assignment to surface combatants and submarines, elicited similar emotional responses. “Women can’t hack it…women don’t have the physical capability…women will fall apart in a combat situation,” have all proven to be false when there is a real emergency or combat situation. Over 10 years of war and women supporting combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown their resilience and capabilities. This is not a social experiment.

The Navy’s implementation plan is due to the defense secretary by May 15, and the plan for integration of Special Operations not until January 2016. By then I hope that women who desire these assignments will be in training, in preparation for what will be viewed through a microscope by those who want to see them fail.

But ladies: “Don’t give up the ship!”

As in, don’t give it up for lost and abandon it. At least one of you will prevail.

Yes women are not built the same as men and are physically weaker. But if those women in that 1% defy the odds and meet the physical standards that are not gender-normed, then they deserve the chance to serve their country as a SEAL or special forces operative or Marine in combat. Women have shown throughout history they can be badass at hand to hand combat and resilient to injuries. So don't lower the standards, and as an example, whatever woman can make it through all three stages of BUDs and selection should be assigned to a team. If she makes it through that training then she won't be making the force weaker. At least let a girl prove herself first before criticizing or "stating the facts" because there are exceptions.

And by the way there are some seriously sexist people out there (I say after reading a comment below)

Sure, it's rare for a women to be as strong as the average male, but there are always exceptions. It seems like with hand to hand combat women would need to be trained to fight with more skill than strength, or a different style of fighting maybe...

My goodness! Does Mrs. Iskra do any research on anything? Mrs. Iskra, when will you start writing about how you protested the lowered standards and quotas combined with political pressure that benefited you? Here is the deal, about 1-1.5% of females will meet the male average of physical performance. That same 1.5% will still be more susceptible to orthopedic injuries than their male counterparts and have more difficulty maintaining the same fitness levels as their male counterparts. Here is just a sampling from when the Brits trained male and females alongside each other and reported the studies in 2002':

"The Women in the Armed Forces report examined the differences in the physical abilities of men and women which are relevant to military performance and observed, unsurprisingly, that they differ significantly. Differences between women and men in their capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness are such that only approximately 1% of women can equal the performance of the average man. In lifting, carrying and similar tasks performed routinely by the British Army, this means that, on average, women have a lower work capacity than men and, when exposed to the same physical workload as men, have to work 50-80% harder to achieve the same results. This puts them at greater risk of injury. In load marching, another fundamental military task, and in all other simulated combat tasks, women were found to perform worse than men, and the greater the load, the greater the discrepancy. The study concluded that about 0.1% of female applicants and 1 % of trained female soldiers would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles."-From Page 4, Section 11 of the UK MoD Women in the Armed Forces Report Summary 2002'.

Mrs. Iskra then thinks that GI Jane is an accurate portrayal? Well, she is right in one respect, that Demi Moore's Character had lower standards for the same job and still passed due to "gender norming". Between Thompson and Iskra I am always shocked about the incredible amount of just plain old ignorance that continues and is presented as well informed reporting. Come on Darlene, don't be afraid to read things that do not agree with your premise, here ya go. Happy to email you the UK Summary, Full Report from 2002' and the review in 2010' as well. At least be informed on your topic and please stop acting like you met the same standards as the men, it is becoming a serious detriment to your credibility as it is with others who perpetuate that myth.

Someone needs to learn what they're talking about. Seriously, there are already women in the Marine Corps. Have been for decades. Not every Marine Corps position is combat. Navy SEALS have billets for BUD/S and the Marine Corps has ratings. Sailors are also already assigned to the Marine Corps as Corpsmen - the Marine Corps equivalent of Army Combat Medics. I guess military intelligence is still a contradiction of terms here...

There is only one way a woman could survive BUDS: if the Navy lowered its standards. Not sexism, just reality. Part of the training involves carrying enormously heavy objects for long periods of time; women's bodies just aren't built to do that.

I have actually commanded women in both training and combat. Facts are facts and cannot be denied. Women are physically weaker than men, get injured at a higher rate, and simply do not have similar strength/endurance ratio's. Among other things. Women in front line ground combat positions weaken an armed force. They simply are not a match for a similarly weighted man. This is why women and men are separate in MMA and boxing.

Women have many wonderful and useful things to offer the military, including superior hand-to-eye coordination. Many of these roles do not fit the traditional definition of what we [collectively] felt women should be doing. However, equality of opportunity has opened many roles [think fighter pilot] to women that work very well. But roles that require physical strength and endurance, particularly for hand-to-combat, are unsuitable for women. They simply make the force weaker...

Yes. Of the 11 women I trained, At least one, Joanna P., would have made an excellent soldier, with the lone exception of hand-to-hand combat. She lifted weights, chewed tobacco....was pretty much the stereotype. But, despite her desire and significant effort, she was never able to equal the men her size in hand-to-hand training. 4 others in the group would have been suitable for non-direct combat work. The other 6 were suited, by their attitudes only, for civilian/office work.

WM's (women Marines) were introduced into the our Corps during WWII to do office and other mondaine work , that's so male Marines could be put in combat units to fight. Just keep SPLIT TAILS out of Marine combat units, we dont need to loose a good man's life or our units assigned missions due to a SPLIT TAIL ! dkerns USMC, SEMPER FI

@skinnerjm.jms this has been my personal experience as well. Some friendly advice for those social scientists and political correctness aggressors victimizing us...if it is a must that women serve in frontline combat roles, especially SOF roles...stop integrating and placed these women in their own separate all female SOF/combat units led by all female unit commanders. This will lessen any future sexual harassment by heterosexual MALE soldiers, sailors and Marines, as well as, not weaken the male side of the SOF/combat units and simultaneously ALLOW the female side of the SOF/combat units to maintain their max gender specific abilities WITHOUT weakening the males, while still being completely relevant, effective and combat ready. As we have discovered in the asymmetrical warfare combat environment, women can go and collect INT where males cannot go and do- this is important. Methinks that this non-social experiment, social experiment is not REALLY about combat effectiveness, or has anything to do with what may be in the best interest of the military war-fighting machine and its assets, because I know I am not the only smart guy who has consider the most optimal method of maximizing efficacy.